Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sia Suan Vs Ramon Alcantara

    Uploaded by

    Evia Rose Dolleton
    497 views2 pages
    1) In 1931, Sia Suan purchased five parcels of land from Ramon Alcantara and his family through a deed of sale. However, in 1940 Ramon attempted to annul the sale, claiming he was a minor at the time. 2) The Court of First Instance initially denied Ramon's request, finding the sale valid. However, the Court of Appeals later reversed this decision. 3) Sia Suan and Gaw Chiao appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor, finding that Ramon had effectively ratified the sale after reaching majority and was estopped from annulling it given he had benefited financially from the transaction.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Original Title

    Sia Suan vs Ramon Alcantara

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) In 1931, Sia Suan purchased five parcels of land from Ramon Alcantara and his family through a deed of sale. However, in 1940 Ramon attempted to annul the sale, claiming he was a minor at the time. 2) The Court of First Instance initially denied Ramon's request, finding the sale valid. However, the Court of Appeals later reversed this decision. 3) Sia Suan and Gaw Chiao appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor, finding that Ramon had effectively ratified the sale after reaching majority and was estopped from annulling it given he had benefited financially from the transaction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    497 views2 pages

    Sia Suan Vs Ramon Alcantara

    Uploaded by

    Evia Rose Dolleton
    1) In 1931, Sia Suan purchased five parcels of land from Ramon Alcantara and his family through a deed of sale. However, in 1940 Ramon attempted to annul the sale, claiming he was a minor at the time. 2) The Court of First Instance initially denied Ramon's request, finding the sale valid. However, the Court of Appeals later reversed this decision. 3) Sia Suan and Gaw Chiao appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor, finding that Ramon had effectively ratified the sale after reaching majority and was estopped from annulling it given he had benefited financially from the transaction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-1720
    Date: March 4, 1950
    Petitioners:

    SIA SUAN and GAW CHIAO

    Respondent:

    RAMON ALCANTARA,

    vs.

    Antonio Barredo for petitioners.


    Zosimo D. Tanalega for respondents.

    P O N E N T E: PARAS, J.

    Facts:

    On August 3, 1931, a deed of sale was executed by Rufino Alcantara and his sons Damaso
    Alcantara and Ramon Alcantara conveying to Sia Suan five parcels of land to petitioner Sia Suan.

    On August 27, 1931, Gaw Chiao (husband of Sia Suan) received a letter from Francisco Alfonso,
    attorney of Ramon Alcantara, informing him that Ramon Alcantara was a minor and accordingly
    disavowing the contract.

    After Gaw Chiao responded to the letter, Ramon Alcantara went to the office of Gaw Chiaos
    counsel ratifying the sale.

    Ramon Alcantara received from Gaw Chiao the sum of P500 as payment for the sold parcels of
    land.

    On August 8, 1940, an action was instituted by Ramon Alcantara in the Court of First Instance of
    Laguna for the annulment of the deed of sale on the ground of his minority at the time of sale.
    Action was denied and Sia Suan, Gaw Chiao, Ramons father and brother, Nicolas and Antonio
    Azores were absolved.

    Ramon brought the case to CA; CFI decision reversed.

    The CFI of Laguna rendered a decision in favor of appellee Alcantara in view of his minority during
    the execution of the contract.

    Sia Suan and Gaw Chiao filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the Deed of Sale executed on August 31, 1931 is null and void.

    Held:

    Ramon Alcantara in his minority may not be allowed to execute the deed of sale but his act of ratification,
    the contract was given a binding effect.

    Ruling: The SC ruled that Ramon is not allowed to annul such deed, because he already ratified it. The
    letter written by him informing the appellants of his minority constituted an effective disaffirmance of the
    sale, and that although the choice to disaffirm will not by itself avoid the contract until the courts adjudge
    the agreement to be invalid, said notice shielded Ramn from laches and consequent estoppels.

    Ramon may have executed his acts in bad faith for he earned money from Gaw Chiao as a result of the
    sale and its ratification, yet he summons the courts to annul the sale because he executed it while still a
    minor.
    The appealed decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby reversed and the appellants absolved from the
    complaint, with costs against the appellee, Ramon Alcantara.

    Deed of Sale
    An offer to purchase property
    The sale or purchase of immoveable property becomes a legal transaction only after the buyer
    and the seller (or their agents) sign a document known as a deed (or agreement) of sale.

    Book 4: Obligations & Contracts


    Title IV. ESTOPPEL (n)

    You might also like